Taking the plunge with a Canon 400D (Rebel Xti) need lens help

[kwl1763]

Ok I need your opinion.

I am going to buy the body only of the XTI

I've been reading, trying borrowing taking pics for a couple months and decided on this over the sony A100 and the D80.

Rather then getting a kit lens I'll probably never use I'm thinking of going body only.

I want a good macro lens for the aquarium pics and a pretty set on a Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens as it seems to be quite highly recomended.

Am I correct in assuming that's a fairly good all around just vacation pics, etc lens also?

Other then the aquarium I also like taking nature pics of birds, etc. so I' also thinking of a Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. Having said when I do vacation I would want the wide angle for landscape but if I have to pick I want a good zoom lens.

Does it make sense to go with these lenses? What would be major limitaions/issues I would be missing?

 

[ssbreef]

The 100mm macro is a GReat! lens for macro and portait photography. Not so great for a vacation lens. I would go with something like the 17-55L or if you want somthing cheaper the 17-85 IS for a walk around vaction lens. Even the 18-55kit lens is a good walk around vaction lens for the price.

 

[golfschosen1]

Good Choice in going with the Canon

 

[MCary]

A lot of people who have bought the 70-300mm claim to rarely take it off the camera. Non-reef keepers I'm sure.

At some point you are going to want to have these lenses.

A macro lens.
A wide angle
A midrange sports zoom
and a long lens.

My choices are:

A 100mm f/2.8
A 17-85 mm IS
A 70-200 f/4 L

and a yet to be purchased 400 mm L prime.

Buy the ones you can afford and will use the most now. But eventually you'll want the rest. Trust me.

Mike

 

[kwl1763]

So I've definitly decided to go with the 17-85 IS as the upgraded kit. I'll defintly go with the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

I'd love to go with the 70-200 f/4L but a $1000 lens is out right now. Plus while I want a good zoom it will probably get used the least for sports/fast action and more for birds, nature and even then I won't use it to it's capability often at all.

I don't know. I borrowed a buddies Sony alpha 300MM and could take killer closups of corals from about 6 feet away. Not the sharpest ever but man could I zoom in there. It took great pics of the fish even at f5.6.

 

[ahuxman58]

Glad your going with Canon, save your money and get the 70-200MM 2.8 IS you wont be sorry believe me. My next lens is the Canon 100MM 2.8 Macro cant wait to buy it .

 

[PL-Reef]

I agree with the macro choice, my first lens bought and don't regret it. I love my 24-70 f/2.8 for walk around, but alot of people say it's too heavy. I would suggest saving your money for the better quality lenses cause you'll probably want them eventually anyway so it's better to just buy them right away IMO. I have to say that I've read great things about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and is my next purchase

 

[ahuxman58]

Good glass has weight !!!!!!! You know your carrying gold.

 

[BlueCorn]

Yeah the 24-70L is monster but it's a great lens. Mine is attached to my camera probably 90% of the time.

 

[jedininja]

I use the 17-85 IS as my main walk around lens. If you cant drop a thousand dollars for a lens, I highly recommend the 17-85 IS. Very sharp lens. Not incredibly fast, but the IS makes up for that. I've tried a few other lens that were under $600, and this was definitely the sharpest.

 

[BlueCorn]

Sure - but also keep in mind that you don't have to buy brand new. B&H and Adorama (and some others) offer used and refurbished. I bought my 24-70L used from B&H and saved over $300. Unlike going the ebay route I had the option to send if back if it wasn't up to par.

Cheers

 

[jedininja]

Wow, thats an awesome price. I've tried looking for L lens used and can never find them. THey always sell out before I can get to it.

 

[ssbreef]

I just picked up a 17-40L used.

 

[MCary]

The 70-200L f/4 is only around $550. The f 2.8 is the expensive one at ~$1000. The f 2.8 IS is $1300 I think.

Mike

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9290531#post9290531 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
The 70-200L f/4 is only around $550.

If you can find the old non-IS version....

 

[PL-Reef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9284270#post9284270 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
Yeah the 24-70L is monster but it's a great lens. Mine is attached to my camera probably 90% of the time.

Ditto, the weight doesn't bother me, maybe it's all my mom muscles LOL

 

[jeffbrig]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9290543#post9290543 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
If you can find the old non-IS version....

Wow, did know it disappeared....I love my 70-200 non IS.

 

[jeffbrig]

(that's didn't know it disappeared)

 

[Willistein]

So I have an XTi and would also love a macro lens. What would be the three best choices at different price ranges, say $250, $500 and $1000?

 

[jeffbrig]

$250 - I don't think you can touch a true 1:1 macro without spending closer to $400.

$500 - EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro - fabulous lens, very popular
Also, the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105 for slightly less money

$1000 - EF 180mm F/3.5L Macro (~$1200) - a lot more money for a little more reach. Also, specialty super macro lenses like the MP-E 65mm (~$800?) come into play.